RICL Appeals Fall Flat

I was obviously giving them much more credit than they deserved, but I sort of expected better than the exaggerated, whining dreck that RICL and its buddies filed with the Illinois Supreme Court. 

RICL Appeal
ICC Appeal
NRDC-WOW Appeal
IBEW Appeal

I didn't find it very appealing at all.  In fact, it only made me appreciate the decision of the Third District Appellate Court a little more.  I don't see where RICL and pals made any valid points, since much of what they complain about was already addressed in the decision they are appealing.

Let's examine RICL's points:

"The Appellate Court overrode the ICC’s interpretation and application of the PUA to erroneously hold that a CPCN applicant must already own or control utility assets in Illinois and have identified Illinois customers for the ICC to have authority to grant it a CPCN."

The Court said:

Rock Island does not own, control, operate, or manage assets within the State. In testimony before the Commission, Rock Island admitted that the project was in the planning stages and that it would only pursue construction if the company determined that it would be profitable in light of future market developments and financial support. Rock Island currently does not own any transmission assets in Illinois, nor does it have any agreements for service with renewable energy generators in this state. While the potential may exist for generators to purchase service on the line, no Illinois generators have agreed to use the proposed line.

The Court based its decision on the speculative nature of RICL.  Without any concrete plans to own or operate anything in the state, RICL cannot be a public utility NOW.

Second point:  "The Appellate Court departed from established principles of review and usurped the ICC’s role as finder of fact by reversing the ICC’s finding that the Project meets the “public use” standard."

The Court said:

The standard of review of the Commission’s findings of fact is deferential. Orders of the Commission are deemed prima facie reasonable, and the Commission’s findings of fact are deemed prima facie true. 220 ILCS 5/10-201(d) (West 2012). The Commission’s findings of fact may only be overturned if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Apple Canyon Lake Property Owners’ Ass’n v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2013 IL App (3d) 100832, ¶ 57.

The Commission’s interpretation of statutory standards is also entitled to deference; however, reviewing courts are not bound by its interpretation of law. Citizens Utility Board v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 166 Ill. 2d 111, 121 (1995). The Commission’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed de novo. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 398 Ill. App. 3d 510, 522 (2009). Where governing statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied as written, and there is no need to resort to extrinsic aids. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 362 Ill. App. 3d 652, 657 (2005). Courts will not defer to an
agency’s construction where the statute is clear because “an interpretation placed upon a statute by an administrative official cannot alter its plain language.” Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 32 Ill. App. 3d 166, 174 (1975).

In reaching our conclusion, we acknowledge the Commission’s position that public utility status is not a prerequisite to seeking a certificate of public convenience and necessity under sections 8-406(a) and (b). The Act does not require an applicant to be a public utility before it seeks certification under the appropriate provisions. A plain reading of the statute shows that an applicant may seek public utility status while, at the same time, applying for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to transact business and construct facilities. See 220 ILCS 5/8406(a), (b) (West 2012). In this case, the issue is whether jurisdiction was properly conferred
based on the Commission’s decision that Rock Island was a public utility. We conclude that it
was not.

Third point:  "The Appellate Court decision denied a CPCN for a project the ICC found will be beneficial to the Illinois public, and will discourage developers from pursuing beneficial transmission projects into and across Illinois."

Huh?  Wha?  Does this have some basis in law?  RICL sort of talks about the Commerce Clause, but what does that have to do with this point?  The Court determined RICL was not legally a public utility under state law.  This was filed in the Illinois Supreme Court.  This is about Illinois law right now.

Here's the most ridiculous thing RICL said in its appeal:

Further, the Court ignored that it is perfectly logical for Rock Island to have no service agreements with customers before receiving its CPCN. Not only did §8-406 prohibit Rock Island from transacting utility business before receiving a CPCN, but customers will not contract for service on a transmission line that does not have regulatory approvals. Rock Island could not even establish pricing for its service before receiving its CPCN, since the ICC must approve a route for the line and could impose requirements with potentially major cost impacts – such as requiring that a
longer route, or one crossing more difficult terrain, be used, thus increasing the costs to construct the Project and provide the service.

I can't believe they had the nerve to say this!  Clean Line has priced its service and contracted with customers in Missouri to buy its service DESPITE its lack of a CPCN, an approved route or regulatory approval.  Who are you trying to kid here, Clean Line?  And even if it wasn't prudent to enter contracts before receiving a CPCN, RICL had a CPCN in Illinois for a year and a half before the Appellate Court ruled, but yet it never signed any contracts.  This is nothing but a big, fat excuse for RICL's speculative nature, and RICL's speculative nature is the reason it cannot be a public utility at this time.  The ICC's approval was based on a fantasy -- that all RICL's plans would fall into place and that it would do all the things it promised the ICC it would do.  The Court's disapproval is based on reality -- that none of RICL's promises mean anything until they actually happen.

But RICL isn't the only one with a really stupid statement in their appeal.  The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Wind on the Wires (WOW), a couple of groups with financial interests in big wind, also stepped on their own toes with a whopper.

The Appellate Court also seems to misunderstand the physics of the transmission
system. The Project will deliver all of the electricity into Illinois, where Illinois consumers will consume some portion of the electrons. The uncontested facts in the record show that Rock Island’s equipment will convert the electricity from direct current transported on the Project into alternating current in Grundy County, Illinois, where the current will be injected into a transmission network owned by Commonwealth Edison and controlled by the regional grid operator PJM Interconnection.

It is NRDC and WOW who misunderstand the physics of the transmission system, and Clean Line's HVDC system in particular.  RICL's AC/DC/AC converter stations act as toll gates to prevent the injection of current into the transmission network owned by ComEd unless a customer has paid the toll to transmit power on RICL.  Customers who pay the toll have purchased the power transmitted.  Not all customers (and in fact currently NO customers) are located in Illinois.  While it's true that all electrons look alike, only AC electrons will flow on ComEd's grid.  Clean Line's DC electrons can only become AC electrons if the toll is paid by a customer to convert them, otherwise, nothing is converted and injected anywhere.  NRDC's and WOW's "understanding" of the grid is probably intended to mislead the court, because they really can't be that stupid, can they?

And I gotta wonder... did all these entities get together for study group or something?  Or did they simply pass around a cheat sheet?  The appeals are all basically the same and rely on the same dreadful misinterpretations of the Third District Court's opinion.  I guess they couldn't find any valid points, so they exaggerated and made crap up.

Now the other side gets a chance to answer and assert a little reality into this case.  Remember, the Supreme Court takes very few cases.  I don't think RICL and its pals made a very convincing case for the Supreme Court to take this one.

That leaves RICL DEAD IN THE WATER WITHOUT A PERMIT.